Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
In Gemmell's book Stormrider, one of his characters has never read a fictitious book before, and this is how it is beautifully described.
'He taught Gaise history and arithmetic – but also smuggled into Eldacre books of verse, and works of imaginative history, in which the characters spoke, one to another, leaving the reader convinced he was in the same room with them. These fictions, as Alterith called them, were the water of life to a parched soul. Gaise devoured them. Here he found what was lacking in his own life: stories of honour and chivalry, friendship and love. Gaise dreaded to think what kind of man he would have become without these yardsticks to measure himself against.'
Edit - I misread the thread, but still, a favourite quote of mine ^^
Well, I'd put anything by for instance writers that churn out stuff that's fun to read, light entertainment, that doesn't really address any 'deeper' issues as NOT in the literary fiction bracket. There is a world between To Kill a Mockingbird and any book by Jodi Picoult.
i'd say to claim otherwise is the exact reverse of 'snobbishness' and speaks of an inability to judge quality.
So - I'd say it's in the quality of prose, structure, characterisation, story, and that it has something to SAY. Something to say that makes you think.
Nothing wrong with a book that doesn't - my shelves are full of stuff i'd not categorise as literary fiction.
Thanks for that, Liz. Nice to know I have no ability to judge quality just because I don't like the way the 'literati' can often look down on other types of writing.
You say that 'there is nothing wrong with a book that doesn't' but also imply that such books have no quality.
'Literary' is most definitely often used as a put down of other types of writing - you've just done it yourself. Oh, and offended me in the process.
Sorry Heather! But I get fed up with people saying (and believe me, I took no notice of who said it just read the comments in a line) that there is no such thing as literary fiction. There is.
And I don't think books that aren't have no quality - I've just finished a Dick Francis that is the epitome of suspenseful enjoyment and full of information - and he writes smoothly, well, but, in no way would you, could you call it literary fiction. in fact he's one (or was) one of my favourite writers.
But they are different.
Edit to say - I don't think it is a put down to say they are different. Both have different input into my life as a reader and I like both. So I am not saying there is anything wrong by implication or straight talking.
Another edit! And of course, you have said you piece first, but have also insulted me, as I think there is a difference - so we are quits!
Ah, well, it was your dig at the term that made me cross enough to actually say exactly what I was thinking - any term that was used to sum it up would fall under that criticism wouldn't it, because people will of course be 'snobbish' about it which means that people like me then feel as if they can't say, yes, i think there is such a thing. I'm very fed up of tiptoeing around the issue.
It's just a term for something that is of quality. I'm fed up with people implying I am a snob for believing that. that's how your comment made me feel. the suggestion that you are a snob for saying yes there is such a thing does stop one from saying you believe there is such a thing.
But on the whole I agree with most things you say, and feel.
I'm all for opinions, but the last thing I'd want is to cause upset. I don't think heather was spoiling for a fight, Liz. I do understand that when people make that distinction, they are referring to a standard of writing - and that that can make others think that what they write is inferior.
Yes, an interesting article, heather, which backed up perfectly the definitions you made. I shall keep that.
I suppose a lot of truly 'literary fiction' which could also be given the title 'great writing' eventually becomes recognised as 'classic'. It tries that little bit harder.
I am sure, also, that there are some who write frippery (with too many redundant words, Carol!) in the belief that they have produced literary fiction.
No! I don't mean Carol would apply it to herself - i mean in general, (the people you say write frippery) people wouldn't apply it to their own writing!
The human condition is defined as "the characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality."
I have read over-flowery fiction, yes, Liz, where the writing has suffered because of it. I can't remember by whom...
I know I do it sometimes myself when I have had had my poetic hat lodged on my head for too long. Sometimes, I can't help dolloping in metaphors and similes which seem so apt to describe what I want to, but maybe detract from the story. However, I have never produced anything which could be given the title 'literary fiction'.
I have also read wonderful flowery writing, such as in The Goldfinch where, as Waylander says, the writing left 'the reader convinced he was in the same room with them'. I'd love to be able to write like that.
Thought of one! Shades of Grey. Apparently charity shops are begging people not to hand them in...
i should point out that i find it very peculiar that all people do not think like me. How very dare they? it's always a complete surprise to me. I do not process like you do.
No offence intended to anyone, but all that happens when I try to read something classed as literary fiction, the red editing light in my brain starts flashing and I just can't read on...
Where one reader will see an enchanting descriptive paragraph, another will skip over a turgid block of pointless, plot-stifling filler. One reader will smile at rib-tickling wordplay while another grinds their teeth at the author's annoying self-indulgence.
The recognition of "literary" fiction sometimes seems like a kind of award that critics and others bestow onto particular works, particularly those by authors famous for very serious, character-led novels who stray into genre territory. 'Oh, yes, it's a story about a crime-solving robot infiltrating a gang of urban vampires, but the language is poetic and the lengthy musings on what it means to be human mean it's literary, so we don't need to condemn it to the lowly genre shelves at the back of the bookshop.'
At the end of the day, it's effectively a useless adjective anyway, as just because something's "literary" (or not) doesn't mean it's "good" (or not).
... but isn't that part of 'eye of the beholder'? I'd definitely class Will Self as writing lit fiction, it's experimental and interesting and clever and well-written all that - the fact i can't bear him or his works cannot negate that fact. I don't think whether you like something or not can judge whether something is or isn't literary fiction.
I think literary fiction exists, but isn't a separate thing. It would, I think, be possible to have a romance or horror stories etc which were also literary fiction. Fitting into that category wouldn't take them out of their genre.
Was just going to thank Heather for her extremely interesting earlier link to find you've posted one too, Baggy Books - thanks to you both. (Sometimes I find reading about how to write fiction more interesting than reading fiction itself!)
This quote from yours BB is particularly pertinent for the debate ""Serious" fiction isn't better than genre fiction in the same way that a table isn't better than a wheelbarrow – they are simply different products serving different needs."
Yes, language is extremely important, Betsie, but so are narrative and character if the writer is to hook the reader and make him/her want to read on. Many years ago, I found Kate Atkinson's novel, Human Croquet, in a holiday home and spent two afternoons of our time there engrossed in it, as I couldn't put it down. Although her prose writing is exquisite, her characters jumped from the page and the plot demanded I find out what happened in the end. She says a lot about the human condition, nature v nurture, etc, in her work, so I would say theme is of utmost importance.
Just found this quote from her during an interview in which she talks about her writing style...
"...I think...at the starting point you always have to be inside the character’s head. You have to be inside Ursula’s head in 1923 before you can feel what 1923 feels like to Ursula, you know what I mean? I think that’s the way I write anyway—that kind of stream of consciousness, internal monologue, it’s hard for me not to write. I like the past. I like the idea of recreating the ambiance of the past."
But couldn't this be said about genre fiction - historical fiction, in this case - also? Perhaps the difference is in the style of writing when treating a particular theme...Atkinson experiments with 'that kind of stream of consciousness, internal monologue'
I also found this interesting where she talks about one of her themes being geranations and families...
"Every family is different. Or every family is unhappy, in their own way. Or, you can’t write about happy families. There’s no fictional mileage in happiness. I would very much like to write a book entirely about happy people, but you just can’t. It’d be impossible!"
All of the above, plus, is it all round excellence? Is it interesting? Does it push boundaries? Did it grip you? Did you not want it to end? Do you think about it afterwards? Do you wonder about the characters and what happened to them? Can you still recall it years afterwards? Would it make a good discussion? Was the writing, at the same time as being invisible (no writing should be obviously there, it is only the carrier for the story and tension etc, if the writing can be heard, it's probably not that good) the sort of writing that slides through your consciousness, bathing those parts that love words and musicality, were the words succinct and only enough to paint the picture that sprang forth into your consciousness fully formed?
There are experimental novels that probably don't chime with everything on that list. There was one we read at book group (the Fingerpost? Maybe not) that was entirely in Scottish dialect and horribly difficult to read. It was lit fiction, but not the sort I like to read!
I don't agree. If you were a diamond merchant and were looking at two polished diamonds, one of supreme excellence, no flaws, huge amount of light capture, fabulous, interesting colour, unusual shape and of a deep clarity, and another, flashy, colourful, great to look at, but without the magnetism that draws you look again and again, I'd say that was similar to a great work of literary fiction and a good book that you enjoy but which isn't going to be something that gets you drooling.
Liz, I agree with all you have said, but the one thing I might beg to differ on is the point 'if the writing can be heard, it's probably not that good.' Perhaps it's because we are writers ourselves and we can't totally turn off our writer's brain, but sometimes in the middle of a good story I find myself thinking, "I wish I'd written that!"
If you were a diamond merchant and were looking at two polished diamonds, one of supreme excellence, no flaws, huge amount of light capture, fabulous, interesting colour, unusual shape and of a deep clarity, and another, flashy, colourful, great to look at, but without the magnetism that draws you look again and again, I'd say that was similar to a great work of literary fiction and a good book that you enjoy but which isn't going to be something that gets you drooling.
The problem with that analogy is that clarity, flaws, etc on a diamond are all quantitative things that can be detected and measured, and one diamond merchant will give much the same assessment of the stone's worth/value as the next.
As you suggest by talking about the "magnetism" a viewer might feel towards a particular diamond - a qualitative property that cannot be measured (in this context, at least) - prose, characterisation, etc can't be classified in that kind of way either. There's no scientific method to determine how effective a metaphor is, or how much resonance a book's underlying theme has with the reader. It can only ever come down to how individual people experience (and hopefully enjoy!) a given book. Trying to divide books into "literary", i.e. worthy, important, special somehow, and "other" creates a false dichotomy and I think that's where the allegations of snobbery and elitism arise.
As a case in point, Seaview clearly loved Human Croquet, whereas I thought it was terrible! To me, it earns a resounding "No" to all of the questions Liz posed further up the page. I'd agree it was a literary novel, but that's not any kind of endorsement, it's just that to me it seemed to focus more on the telling of the story than the story itself.
Describing a book as literary suggests maybe a general style of storytelling, perhaps gives a hint to the author's approach to the subject. It really isn't about quality, or how much somebody will enjoy/benefit from reading it, because those things are (mostly) subjective.
I've always understood literary fiction to be a story with a deep and profound message (usually pholosophical) and that message is more important than the plot/characters. So a philosophical fictional piece that is neither plot nor character driven? I don't know.
Out of interest, could anyone give examples of what they would consider to be literary fiction?
I worked on a book last year that would probably fit the bill. I described it as being a book that you would either discard after a chapter or that it would take over your life. The reviewers agreed with me. They either loved it or hated it. Shan't name it because I wouldn't want the author to be embarrassed by this thread.
Anything by Huxley. Tim Winton. Brady Udall. Mervyn Peake. John Irving. Sarah Waters. Kate Atkinson.
Books i would not call literary fiction but which I devour - Lee Child. Dick Francis.
Then there are books in the middle which although they are exceptionally written, I can't really say that they are literary fiction (for me, anyway) - Stephen King, for example. He writes wonderfully well but his books lack a certain something I'm trying to put my finger on...
I'm not keen on genre boundaries but my stab at literary would be that the majority of those who like that sort of thing see within it, at minimum: universality across time and place, beauty in the language and rhythms, potential to increase wisdom rather than knowledge.
Comments
More concerned with the words/delivery than the plot/story?
Addressing 'deeper' issues?
Who knows?
(Don't really like the term personally, as it has a twang of intellectual snobbery about it)
http://www.writing-world.com/fiction/literary.shtml
'He taught Gaise history and arithmetic – but also smuggled into Eldacre books of verse, and works of imaginative history, in which the characters spoke, one to another, leaving the reader convinced he was in the same room with them. These fictions, as Alterith called them, were the water of life to a parched soul. Gaise devoured them. Here he found what was lacking in his own life: stories of honour and chivalry, friendship and love. Gaise dreaded to think what kind of man he would have become without these yardsticks to measure himself against.'
Edit - I misread the thread, but still, a favourite quote of mine ^^
i'd say to claim otherwise is the exact reverse of 'snobbishness' and speaks of an inability to judge quality.
So - I'd say it's in the quality of prose, structure, characterisation, story, and that it has something to SAY. Something to say that makes you think.
Nothing wrong with a book that doesn't - my shelves are full of stuff i'd not categorise as literary fiction.
You say that 'there is nothing wrong with a book that doesn't' but also imply that such books have no quality.
'Literary' is most definitely often used as a put down of other types of writing - you've just done it yourself. Oh, and offended me in the process.
And I don't think books that aren't have no quality - I've just finished a Dick Francis that is the epitome of suspenseful enjoyment and full of information - and he writes smoothly, well, but, in no way would you, could you call it literary fiction. in fact he's one (or was) one of my favourite writers.
But they are different.
Edit to say - I don't think it is a put down to say they are different. Both have different input into my life as a reader and I like both. So I am not saying there is anything wrong by implication or straight talking.
Another edit! And of course, you have said you piece first, but have also insulted me, as I think there is a difference - so we are quits!
It's just a term for something that is of quality. I'm fed up with people implying I am a snob for believing that. that's how your comment made me feel. the suggestion that you are a snob for saying yes there is such a thing does stop one from saying you believe there is such a thing.
But on the whole I agree with most things you say, and feel.
Yes, an interesting article, heather, which backed up perfectly the definitions you made. I shall keep that.
I suppose a lot of truly 'literary fiction' which could also be given the title 'great writing' eventually becomes recognised as 'classic'. It tries that little bit harder.
I am sure, also, that there are some who write frippery (with too many redundant words, Carol!) in the belief that they have produced literary fiction.
Loved that quote, John... uh, Waylander.
Surely the term is not one you would apply to yourself?
Oh dear. I wish I hadn't started this discussion.
I'm saying nowt.
Soooo all books then?
I know I do it sometimes myself when I have had had my poetic hat lodged on my head for too long. Sometimes, I can't help dolloping in metaphors and similes which seem so apt to describe what I want to, but maybe detract from the story. However, I have never produced anything which could be given the title 'literary fiction'.
I have also read wonderful flowery writing, such as in The Goldfinch where, as Waylander says, the writing left 'the reader convinced he was in the same room with them'. I'd love to be able to write like that.
i should point out that i find it very peculiar that all people do not think like me. How very dare they? it's always a complete surprise to me. I do not process like you do.
Do you have a book in mind?
Where one reader will see an enchanting descriptive paragraph, another will skip over a turgid block of pointless, plot-stifling filler. One reader will smile at rib-tickling wordplay while another grinds their teeth at the author's annoying self-indulgence.
The recognition of "literary" fiction sometimes seems like a kind of award that critics and others bestow onto particular works, particularly those by authors famous for very serious, character-led novels who stray into genre territory. 'Oh, yes, it's a story about a crime-solving robot infiltrating a gang of urban vampires, but the language is poetic and the lengthy musings on what it means to be human mean it's literary, so we don't need to condemn it to the lowly genre shelves at the back of the bookshop.'
At the end of the day, it's effectively a useless adjective anyway, as just because something's "literary" (or not) doesn't mean it's "good" (or not).
Is he Sci fi? i have several by him but have never read them... perhaps I'll try now Is Cloud Atlas sci fi/
My mum once said that nothing much happens in a lot of literary fiction but she feels compelled to read on just in case it does!
http://www.novel-writing-help.com/literary-fiction.html
This quote from yours BB is particularly pertinent for the debate
""Serious" fiction isn't better than genre fiction in the same way that a table isn't better than a wheelbarrow – they are simply different products serving different needs."
"...I think...at the starting point you always have to be inside the character’s head. You have to be inside Ursula’s head in 1923 before you can feel what 1923 feels like to Ursula, you know what I mean? I think that’s the way I write anyway—that kind of stream of consciousness, internal monologue, it’s hard for me not to write. I like the past. I like the idea of recreating the ambiance of the past."
But couldn't this be said about genre fiction - historical fiction, in this case - also? Perhaps the difference is in the style of writing when treating a particular theme...Atkinson experiments with 'that kind of stream of consciousness, internal monologue'
I also found this interesting where she talks about one of her themes being geranations and families...
"Every family is different. Or every family is unhappy, in their own way. Or, you can’t write about happy families. There’s no fictional mileage in happiness. I would very much like to write a book entirely about happy people, but you just can’t. It’d be impossible!"
There are experimental novels that probably don't chime with everything on that list. There was one we read at book group (the Fingerpost? Maybe not) that was entirely in Scottish dialect and horribly difficult to read. It was lit fiction, but not the sort I like to read!
As you suggest by talking about the "magnetism" a viewer might feel towards a particular diamond - a qualitative property that cannot be measured (in this context, at least) - prose, characterisation, etc can't be classified in that kind of way either. There's no scientific method to determine how effective a metaphor is, or how much resonance a book's underlying theme has with the reader. It can only ever come down to how individual people experience (and hopefully enjoy!) a given book. Trying to divide books into "literary", i.e. worthy, important, special somehow, and "other" creates a false dichotomy and I think that's where the allegations of snobbery and elitism arise.
As a case in point, Seaview clearly loved Human Croquet, whereas I thought it was terrible! To me, it earns a resounding "No" to all of the questions Liz posed further up the page. I'd agree it was a literary novel, but that's not any kind of endorsement, it's just that to me it seemed to focus more on the telling of the story than the story itself.
Describing a book as literary suggests maybe a general style of storytelling, perhaps gives a hint to the author's approach to the subject. It really isn't about quality, or how much somebody will enjoy/benefit from reading it, because those things are (mostly) subjective.
Out of interest, could anyone give examples of what they would consider to be literary fiction?
Books i would not call literary fiction but which I devour - Lee Child. Dick Francis.
Then there are books in the middle which although they are exceptionally written, I can't really say that they are literary fiction (for me, anyway) - Stephen King, for example. He writes wonderfully well but his books lack a certain something I'm trying to put my finger on...